Bible Quotation For Today/ I desire
mercy and not sacrifice
Matthew 12/,01-14/:"At that time Jesus went through the cornfields on the
sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and
to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are
doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.’ He said to them, ‘Have you not
read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house
of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his
companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law
that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are
guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had
known what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice", you would not have
condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.’He left that
place and entered their synagogue; a man was there with a withered hand, and
they asked him, ‘Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath? ’ so that they might
accuse him. He said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls
into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much
more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the
sabbath.’ Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out,
and it was restored, as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and
conspired against him, how to destroy him."

Bible Quotation For Today/In the last
days distressing times will come
Second Letter to Timothy 03/01-09/: "You must understand this, that in the last
days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves,
lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents,
ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters
of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather
than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its
power. Avoid them! For among them are those who make their way into households
and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of
desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of
the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind
and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth. But they will not make much
progress, because, as in the case of those two men, their folly will become
plain to everyone."

Rustom Ghazaleh leaves hospital after ‘beating’
The Daily Star/Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star/Mar. 07, 2015
The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A high-ranking Syrian intelligence official has left a Damascus hospital
after receiving treatment for injuries suffered in a beating ordered by a
colleague over a dispute involving Iranian influence in Syria, political sources
told The Daily Star.
Sources familiar with the issue said that Lt. Gen. Rustom Ghazaleh, who heads
the powerful political intelligence branch, was discharged from the Shami
Hospital in the Syrian capital Thursday.
His hospitalization, they said, took place after he received a severe beating by
a security detail acting at the orders of Lt. Gen. Rafik Shehadeh, the head of
military intelligence.
Ghazaleh received a telephone call from Shehadeh, ordering him to report to his
office. When Ghazaleh arrived for the meeting he was beaten severely by
Shehadeh’s bodyguards, who later dumped him at the entrance of the hospital,
they said.
Also, several physicians close to Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun
traveled to Damascus early in the week to assist in Ghazaleh’s treatment, the
sources said. The team was made up of a cardiologist, a neurologist and an
emergency treatment specialist.
The incident resulted from the regime’s growing anger at Ghazaleh over a
simmering dispute believed to involve the role of non-Syrian forces such as Iran
and Lebanon’s Hezbollah in directing the war effort.
The sources said that Ghazaleh had refused to hand over his villa in his native
village of Qarfa in Deraa to military personnel from Iran and Hezbollah involved
in battling rebel groups in the south.
The villa was detonated in mid-December, according to a video posted to YouTube.
A shadowy pro-regime group calling itself the National Resistance Movement
claimed to have deliberately destroyed the residence so that it would not fall
into the hands of rebel militias that were close to overrunning the village.
Some observers read the incident as an open challenge to the regime and its
allies.
However, several pro-regime sources said they had spoken to Ghazaleh while he
was in the hospital and were told he had broken his shoulder in a combat-related
incident in his home province of Deraa in southern Syria.
They said a mortar bomb exploded next to a vehicle he was riding in while
involved in military operations in Deraa, causing it to overturn.
The Syrian army and allied paramilitary groups launched an offensive in January
in southern Syria, seeking to exert control over a strategic triangle of
territory that stretches across three provinces – Deraa, Qunaitra and Rural
Damascus.
Iranian personnel, along with Shiite paramilitaries from Lebanon, Iraq and
Afghanistan, are also taking part in the offensive.
Ghazaleh served from 2002 to 2005 as the top Syrian intelligence official
responsible for Lebanon when Damascus exercised control over its neighbor.

Geagea Compares Relation with Aoun to
'Love Story', Says Nasrallah 'Harming Shiites, Lebanese'
Naharnet /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea announced Friday that the ongoing
dialogue with the Free Patriotic Movement will eventually lead to “joint
political steps,” noting that Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is harming
Shiites and all Lebanese through his group's intervention in Syria.“Popular
bases in Lebanon interact with their leaders and they will see how the LF-FPM
dialogue will be translated into joint political steps,” said Geagea in an
interview on al-Jadeed FM radio.
Asked about his relation with Aoun, Geagea answered humorously: “Every 'love
story' starts with a glance and a smile before evolving into a 'date' and we're
still in the 'glance-smile phase.'” LF media officer Melhem Riachi and MP
Ibrahim Kanaan of the FPM have recently started a series of meetings away from
the media spotlight at the behest of both Geagea and Aoun. The talks are being
held amid a protracting presidential vacuum that started with the end of Michel
Suleiman's term on May 25, 2014.
The two parties have announced that they are preparing a so-called declaration
of intent paper. “30 years of accumulations are delaying things,” Geagea added.
Asked about Hizbullah, the LF leader said “a lot of issues that Sayyed Hassan is
speaking of contradict with our view of Lebanon.”“I cannot accept Hizbullah's
intervention in Syria and we're at odds today because of essential differences,”
added Geagea.Addressing Nasrallah, he went on to say: “You are harming Shiites
in Lebanon and harming all Lebanese through your actions.”
“All Lebanese parties must not interfere in the regional schemes so that no one
practices hegemony over Lebanon,” Geagea underlined.In response to a question
about al-Mustaqbal movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri, Geagea stressed that “he
is free and will remain free.”

Elect president on your own, U.S. envoy tells Lebanese
Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star/Mar. 07, 2015
Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The United States Friday prodded rival Lebanese leaders to elect a
president without counting on foreign deals to help them choose a new head of
state and accused Hezbollah of harming Lebanon’s stability over its role in
Syria.
The remarks by U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon David Hale were the latest foreign
appeal to Lebanese political factions to act to elect a president as the
deadlock, now in its 10th month, has paralyzed Parliament legislation and is
threatening to cripple the government’s work.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese Army confirmed it had arrested a key ISIS commander in
the military’s latest crackdown on Islamist militants threatening to destabilize
Lebanon.
Hale cautioned that rivalry between the March 8 and March 14 camps over the
election of a successor to former President Michel Sleiman has thrown the
government’s work into paralysis.
“Disputes over the election of a president have brought the normal functioning
of government to a standstill,” Hale said in a statement after meeting Interior
Minister Nouhad Machnouk. “Yet, this is a time when all elements of the state
should be working in unison to address these and other problems, in accordance
with the Constitution and the National Pact.”
“There is no reason for delay and it is time to put Lebanon’s stability ahead of
partisan politics. There should be no expectation of foreign deals to choose a
president. Instead of looking outside Lebanon for answers, we urge Lebanon’s
leaders to respect their own Constitution and elect their own president, on
their own,” Hale added.
However, Hale’s remarks sharply contrast with previous statements made by
Machnouk, Speaker Nabih Berri and other Lebanese politicians who have argued
that a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which back opposing sides in
Lebanon, was essential to facilitate the election of a president.
Hale’s comments came two days after Berri called for a new Parliament session on
March 11 to elect a president. Parliament last month failed for the 19th time
since April to elect a president over a lack of quorum, plunging the country in
a prolonged vacuum in the country’s top post.
Hale said a prime topic during his meeting with Machnouk was the minister’s
upcoming visit to Washington.
“We very much welcome his visit and look forward to senior level discussions on
how we can further deepen security cooperation between our two countries,” he
said.
Hale promised continued U.S. military support for the Lebanese Army in its
ongoing battle against terrorism, warning Lebanon still faced serious security
threats from Syria-based jihadis.
“Lebanon is facing serious challenges and threats, and we need to be sober about
them. The spillover of terrorism and extremism from Syria is not over,” Hale
said in the statement released by the U.S. Embassy.
He accused Hezbollah of harming Lebanon’s stability over its role in Syria and
of violating the government’s disassociation policy toward the conflict.
“The harm to Lebanese stability caused by Hezbollah’s violation of the policy of
dissociation continues,” Hale said. “Hezbollah’s readiness to violate
international norms and U.N. Security Council resolutions was made self-evident
in January.”
He was referring to a Hezbollah attack on an Israeli military convoy in the
Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms on Jan. 28 that killed two soldiers in response to
an Israeli airstrike on a Hezbollah convoy in the Syrian town of Qunaitra in the
Golan Heights on Jan. 18 that killed six party members and an Iranian commander.
“Hezbollah continues to make life and death decisions for all of Lebanon, yet
consults no one, is accountable to no Lebanese, and answers to foreign powers,”
Hale said, clearly referring to Iran, Hezbollah’s benefactor.
The U.S. ambassador praised the role of the Lebanese Army and security forces in
defending Lebanon against the threat of terrorism.
“As you face these security challenges arising from Syria, it is important to
look at Lebanon’s sources of strength. First, the Army and security services
have the will and commitment to defend Lebanon, and are doing so with courage,”
he said.
“Second, the Lebanese nation is united behind the effort to counter violent
extremism. Third, you are not alone. You can count on continuous and meaningful
support from the United States and others to ensure that the Army has the means
to fight.”
“Fourth, our common values distinguish us from these barbaric extremists. Our
values are stronger than the false appeal from the extremists, and therefore we
will prevail,” Hale said.
“And finally, the international community may have differences elsewhere in the
region, but it is united in its desire to help Lebanon insulate itself from
these external threats and conflicts.”
Meanwhile, a Syrian suspect who was being treated at a Bekaa Valley hospital for
wounds sustained in recent clashes with the Lebanese Army in the northeastern
town of Ras Baalbek has emerged as a key ISIS commander, according to a military
statement Friday.
The statement said Hasan Ghorli, nicknamed Abu Hareth al-Ansari, “is one of the
most dangerous detained terrorists.” Ghorli was arrested March 2 for his role in
the August battle against the Lebanese Army on the outskirts of the northeastern
border town of Arsal and the Feb. 23 attack on an Army post in Tallet al-Hamra
on the outskirts of Ras Baalbek, which left him wounded after soldiers repelled
the militants. The Army said Ghorli confessed he belonged to ISIS and that he
had headed an armed group that pledged allegiance to ISIS in July 2014 and made
a decision to attack military positions following the arrest of ISIS commander
Imad Jomaa, whose detention triggered the bloody clashes in Arsal in August.
During interrogation, Ghorli also admitted that he would take the place of other
guards protecting the kidnapped Lebanese servicemen and moving them from one
place to another. He also said he witnessed the murder of Lebanese Corp. Ali
al-Ali and revealed the identity of the ISIS militant who beheaded soldiers Ali
al-Sayyed and Abbas Medlej, according to the statement.
A senior military official said Ghorli, who was arrested by Army Intelligence,
had been referred to a military court for further interrogation. “Ghorli has
made important confessions which we cannot disclose now because they will help
the Army in its battle against terrorism,” the official told The Daily Star.

Casino loyale
The Daily Star/Mar. 07, 2015/Lebanon’s Labor Minister Sejaan Azzi took to the
airwaves Friday to declare that all has been forgiven on the Casino du Liban
front. Nearly 200 Casino workers had protested against being fired – for failing
to report to work over many years. The government’s solution? Out of the total
number of employees who were dismissed, more than half will receive severance
packages – lucrative ones, some approaching $200,000. Meanwhile, two smaller
groups will either keep their jobs or take medical exams to determine if they
should continue to receive their paychecks. The casino is one of Lebanon’s many
caves, the kind frequented by Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. Practically anyone in
the country is able to talk at length about the corruption that has plagued the
casino, although it’s just one of many such pockets of corruption throughout the
state bureaucracy and institutions supervised or owned by the government. The
casino saga is particularly galling because there is a distinct lack of action
or urgency when it comes to a whole host of long-standing problems that affect
the daily lives and interests of tens of thousands of people. MPs and
politicians have spent years forming committees and holding meetings to discuss
topics such as producing a new rent law, or a new salary scale for teachers and
public servants. These politicians say the government doesn’t have enough money
to solve these issues, but apparently it has enough money to reward certain
cronies – even though these “employees” should be prosecuted and forced to
return what they received for doing nothing except adding to the country’s many
problems.

The Treasures of Nimrud in Pictures
http://www.aina.org/news/20150306210942.htm
(AINA) -- The Royal Tombs of Nimrud were first discovered in April of 1989 by an
expedition of the Iraqi Department of Antiquities and Heritage. The Tomb was
located in the North-West Palace of the Ancient city of Kalkhu (modern city of
Nimrud). The city of Kalkhu was a capital of the Assyrian Empire for over 150
years until King Sargon moved the capital to Dur-Sharukin (modern Khorshabad) in
717 B.C. The city is located 4 miles south-west of the Christian monastery of
Mar Behnam. The first dig of this ancient site was conducted by a British
mission over 150 years ago, which uncovered many reliefs. Many Ancient Assyrian
Tombs have been found in the past, however the goods had all been plundered and
stolen. Two remaining tombs exist; one in Berlin and one in its original
location in the city of Ashur. The sarcophagus in the tomb chamber contained
hundreds of items including jewelry, vessels, ornaments, seals and other goods.
The items displayed Syrian and Phoenician iconography in addition to central
Assyrian Art. The treasures Belonged to:
•Yaba, Queen of Tiglathpileser III, king of Assyria 744-727
•Banitu, Queen of Shalmanasser V, king of Assyria 726-722
•Atalia, Queen of Sargon II, king of Assyria 721-705
ISIS destroyed the city of Nimrud yesterday. It is located just south of Mosul,
Iraq.

Unconfirmed Reports of the Release of All Assyrians Held By
ISIS
2015-03-06 /Joseph and Sargon Sarkis -- two of the Assyrians captured by
ISIS.(AINA) -- Sources in Hasaka are reporting that ISIS has released all the
Assyrians it had captured when it attacked Assyrian villages on the Khabur River
on February 23. But AINA could not verify these reports. If the hostages have
been released, they are still in ISIS held territory and have not yet reached
Hasaka, the most likely destination.
ISIS captured between 262 and 373 Assyrians in its initial attacks on the 35
Assyrian villages on the river.
See attacks on Assyrians in Syria.
ISIS released 19 of the 21 Assyrians captured from the Village of Tel Goran on
March 1, and the remaining 2 on March 3. In an interview with AINA, one of the
Assyrians released by ISIS said they were told they could not return to their
villages, if they did they would be killed (AINA 2015-03-05).
On February 23 ISIS attacked the Assyrian villages of Tel Goran, Tel Hurmiz, Tel
Tamar, Tel Baloaa Tel Shamiran, Tel Riman, Tel Nasra, Tel Khareta, Tel Jazira,
Tel Fweidat, Qaber Shamiyeh and Abu Tena.
Nine Assyrian fighters died defending their villages in the initial attacks and
there are reports that ISIS has executed at least 12 Assyrian fighters who were
captured, two of them women.
The majority of the Assyrians were captured from Tel Shamiran, Tel Hurmiz, Tel
Goran and Tel Jazira.

Syrian Terrorist who Guarded Arsal
Captives Referred to Judiciary
Naharnet/The army intelligence referred to the judiciary on Friday a Syrian who
has guarded the servicemen taken hostage by the Islamic State terrorist group
and participated in the battles against the military.
The army said in a communique that Hussein Ghurelli was arrested on Monday for
participating in the attacks on army posts on the outskirts of the northeastern
border town of Arsal in August last year.
It did not give details on his arrest. But the state-run National News Agency
said on Thursday that Ghurelli was apprehended while undergoing treatment at a
hospital in the eastern Bekaa Valley.
The suspect has also taken part in the assault on army positions in the area of
Tallet al-Hamra of Ras Baalbek on February 23 during which he was injured, said
the communique.
Ghurelli admitted to investigators that he had been tasked by terrorist
organizations to monitor military convoys and that he had participated in all
the battles against the army as part of an armed group that had pledged
allegiance to the IS in July 2014, it said.
According to the communique, Ghurelli also admitted to guarding the soldiers and
policemen who were taken captive by jihadists from the IS and al-Nusra Front in
Arsal during the August battles.
The suspect said that he transported the captives held by the IS from one area
to the other and that he witnessed the execution of one of the hostages, Ali
al-Ali.
The IS and al-Nusra Front have executed four of them. They want to exchange the
captives with Islamist prisoners in Lebanon and Syria.
The communique added that Ghurelli revealed the identity of the jihadists who
executed soldiers Ali al-Sayyed and Abbas Medlej.

Police swoop on trio over Canada mall ‘threat,'”
Ottawa (AFP) – Police arrested two men and a woman in a raid Tuesday over a
“potential threat” to a mall near Canada’s port city of Halifax, home to the
navy’s Atlantic fleet. It comes after security officials last month warned
shoppers in Canada, the United States and Britain to be on guard after an
Al-Qaeda-linked militant group posted a video calling for attacks on Western
malls. Halifax Police Constable Pierre Bourdages said a “heavy police presence”
was dispatched to the Mic Mac Mall in the Halifax suburb of Dartmouth and the
mall was closed for the day, although investigators said the threat had not been
confirmed. Officers raided a small bungalow in connection with the threat, but a
suspect was absent and “no dangerous substances” or firearms were found,
Bourdages told AFP.
A short time later, an apartment in another part of Halifax was raided and three
people — two men and a woman — were taken into custody. Police said they “have
been actively investigating the matter to determine the validity of the threat
and to this point no threat has been confirmed.” The Shebab militant group last
month specifically threatened the Mall of America in the US state of Minnesota,
Canada’s massive West Edmonton Mall, London’s famous Oxford Street and two malls
in France….

“Terror arrives in Canada – but whose?
Catherine Chapman 4 March 2015/Open Democracy
https://www.opendemocracy.net/catherine-chapman/terror-arrives-in-canada-%E2%80%93-but-whose
New anti-terror legislation will, according to its proponents, show terrorists
that Canada will “never be intimidated.” But many Canadians themselves are more
than a little intimidated by Bill C-51.
Victor Biro via demotix. All rights reserved
On October 22, 2014 32-year-old Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed Corporal Nathan
Crillio at the Canadian National War Memorial with a .30-30 calibre Winchester
riffle, a firearm typically suited to hunting deer. Driving the short distance
to Parliament Hill, he then entered Centre Block, to be killed minutes later,
leaving much of the downtown core on lockdown.
Two days before in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, 25-year-old Martin Couture-Rouleau
ran down two Canadian soldiers with his car, killing one, and Canada’s terror
threat level was raised to medium.
Terror had arrived in Canada. And no one seemed prepared.
Bill C-51
Hours after the Ottawa shooting, Prime Minister Stephen Harper explained how
Canada would “never be intimidated,” in a statement that permitted his
Conservative Government to fast-track new anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51.
Over 100 academics have argued that there are major problems with the bill.
Bill-C51, which has passed its second reading before Parliament, seeks to reform
laws already in place by making the promotion or intentional advocacy of
terrorism illegal, removing such propaganda from the Internet and lowering the
thresholds for terror arrests from acts that ‘will’ to those that ‘may’ be
carried out. Information sharing by government arms - previously having led to
injustices - also expands.
According to a critique released by law professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach,
“It is, quite simply, the broadest concept of security that we have ever seen
codified into law in Canada.” Along with Forcese and Roach, over 100 academics
have argued that there are major problems with the bill.
The critics
Much criticism, including from four former Prime Minsters, has focused on
oversight methods- ones governing these bodies remaining minimal and unaltered
for the increased power needed to deter “violent jihadism”, as told by Harper
when first introducing the bill on January 30th 2015.
Civil liberty organizations have also expressed concerns.
“This bill clearly has major implications for freedom of speech,” said David
Christopher of online rights activists, OpenMedia. “Given that the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has already been caught monitoring a wide
range of peaceful groups and individuals, C-51 will have a stifling effect on
free expression and democratic debate in Canada.”
OpenMedia has campaigned against the growing culture of secrecy and closed
government initiatives brought on by the Harper government - ‘Stop Spying On
Us’, a Bill C-51 canvass, now with over 21,500 supporters.
Fear
Attempts to pass obscure legislation allowing for security services to monitor
online space have been repeatedly deemed too extensive and unconstitutional.
Laws like these are comparable to Bill C-51- expanded authority for CSIS with
implications of abuse through the sweeping language used. Yet despite opposition
- and Snowden documents confirming mass surveillance by Canada’s intelligence
community - when introduced alongside military crisis or public tragedy, many
regulations such as this have been passed.
“It’s basically our government using fear to sell what is really a dangerous
bill and what doesn’t provide more security,” said Canadian Journalists for Free
Expression (CJFE) executive director Tom Henheffer. “But it’s hard to vote
against an anti-terror bill. This follows a trend of what this government is
doing. They are more willing to sacrifice our free expression rights and right
to privacy for the illusion of security, which has shown to be ineffective.”
It’s hard to vote against an anti-terror bill.
Fear was there on 9/11, causing Canada to pass its Anti-terrorism Act months
later. After the October 22 attack, fear is there again now.
In the House of Commons after the October shooting in Ottawa, Harper hugged
Liberal Opposition Leader Justin Trudeau in a moment of solidarity - Trudeau is
supporting the legislation, while opposition party the New Democrats (NDP) are
not.
Similarly in 1970, Trudeau’s father and former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre
Elliot, suspended civil liberties in order to curb the Front de Liberation du
Quebec (FLQ)- a Quebec separatist group who had been regarded as a terror
threat.
Here, with more power and no accountability for security agencies, violations to
privacy and basic freedoms occurred. Reforms were put in place, and then
forgotten until a subsequent intelligence transgression transpired.
Examples like these are far too familiar in Canada’s history. Bill C-51 comes
with little memory of the past and relatively no regard for social and political
factors differentiating Canada from its western allies- a pluralist society with
its implementation of multiculturalism admired globally.
The threat at home
Speaking to the Canadian media two weeks before the October attacks, Lorne
Dawson, co-director of the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security
and Society, said, “It’s not a matter of if Canada is going to experience a
terrorist attack, it’s when.”
Much of Dawson’s research focuses on radicalization and Canada’s ‘foreign
fighter problem’. Part of the response to the latter saw the arrest of Mohamed
Hersi in July 2014 under the country’s 2013 Combating Terrorism law - making it
illegal to leave Canada to engage in terrorist activity overseas. Hersi was the
first Canadian charged under these measures.
A 2014 Public Safety report on ‘The Terrorist Threat to Canada’ cites more than
130 individuals with links to Canada suspected of supporting terrorism-related
activities abroad.
At home, plots like the Toronto 18, Via Rail and Canada Day bomb scare, are
“somewhat amateur in comparison to the 7/7 bombings in the UK”, according to
Dawson. And while difficult to determine, “the segment radicalized is way
smaller, probably even than Denmark.”
You can’t stop every single act of violence by driving it underground.
While some do not, Dawson believes that the Zehalf-Bibeau shooting was
terrorism.
“It was a lone wolf terrorist attack infused by his own mental difficulties,” he
said. “He secured a gun, bought the car, didn’t shoot the first cop he ran into,
but it seems fairly clear that he chose a politically appropriate target. Then
it’s an open question whether he meant to attack Parliament or whether he was
just surprised that nobody gunned him down.”
Critics of Bill C-51 have said these new laws aren’t necessary and that the
Canadian government has failed to demonstrate how current legislation is unable
to reprimand acts of terror or how these new laws could prevent lone wolves like
Zehalf-Bibeau.
“This version of glorification laws is sort of a lighter version than the kind
existing in France,” said Carmen Cheung, Senior Counsel for the British Columbia
Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). But, “We can see from the French example
that you can’t stop every single act of violence by driving it underground and
it may make it more difficult to detect potential threats. Ideas aren’t
dangerous.”
Despite ‘jihad terrorism’ being mentioned in Parliament, the breadth of Bill
C-51 remains frightening.
What is terrorism?
“What is terrorism?” said Tyler Levitan from Independent Jewish Voices, human
rights advocates. “The way the bill is framed is not only extremely
disconcerting for Palestinian human rights activists, but for Canadians in
support of the rights of the Tamil people, environmentalists and native groups.”
The way the bill is framed is extremely disconcerting for Palestinian human
rights activists.
Bill C-51 also designates a new felony of those who interfere with ‘critical
infrastructure’, something that worries organizations like Greenpeace, who have
been called ‘violent extremists’ alongside Aboriginal groups opposing tar sands
and pipelines.
When asked how Bill C-51 would distinguish between factors like these, Harper
replied with, “whether they’re in a basement, or whether they’re in a mosque or
somewhere else,” promoting terrorism would be a serious offence for anyone.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) took issue with that, Canada’s
Muslim community having disproportionately felt the affects of 2001’s new
security procedures.
“We are concerned as every other fellow citizen with securing the security of
our country,” said Ihsaan Gardee, NCCM’s executive director. “But human rights
and civil liberties should go hand and hand. Our view is that it’s important to
do something effective and not something that’s for the sake of being seen to be
doing something. Radicalization towards extremist violence needs a community
that takes it seriously and all Canadians should be able to make their voices
heard.”
Dawson is concerned as well. He believes that Bill C-51 could help reprimand
real treats, but also wonders what negative effects new laws could bring.
“Not everyone who is radicalized commits a terrorist act,” he said. “It may have
a chilling effect on general discourse and we want an open discussion to engage
with those views in dialogue.”
Outcome unknown
Under Bill C-51 the possible polarization of society is unknown. Whether it will
be illegal for a journalist to write something, a not-for-profit to give funding
or land protestors to campaign, is also uncertain.
For decades, acts of terror have been a live issue in Canada, defined loosely by
what the government determines is a threat to national security.
For decades, acts of terror have been a live issue in Canada.
Currently, the bill sits before committee where experts give testimony in a
number scheduled meetings- the 4 meetings set originally, have now increased to
9.
Whether this extension of debate is due to public outcry, the Conservatives are
still set to move quickly with passing the legislature- expected in its third
reading by the end of the month.
But if Harper is right to say that war has been declared on all those who value
“freedom, openness and tolerance,” it must now be added that holding a
government to account is fast becoming the true measure

Who is Nimrod in the Bible?
Gen 10:6-14
That which is observable and improvable in these verses is the account here
given of Nimrod, Gen_10:8-10. He is here represented as a great man in his day:
He began to be a mighty one in the earth, that is, whereas those that went
before him were content to stand upon the same level with their neighbours, and
though every man bore rule in his own house yet no man pretended any further,
Nimrod's aspiring mind could not rest here; he was resolved to tower above his
neighbours, not only to be eminent among them, but to lord it over them. The
same spirit that actuated the giants before the flood (who became mighty men,
and men of renown, Gen_6:4), now revived in him, so soon was that tremendous
judgment which the pride and tyranny of those mighty men brought upon the world
forgotten. Note, There are some in whom ambition and affectation of dominion
seem to be bred in the bone; such there have been and will be, notwithstanding
the wrath of God often revealed from heaven against them. Nothing on this side
hell will humble and break the proud spirits of some men, in this like Lucifer,
Isa_14:14, Isa_14:15. Now,
I. Nimrod was a great hunter; with this he began, and for this became famous to
a proverb. Every great hunter is, in remembrance of him, called a Nimrod.
1. Some think he did good with his hunting, served his country by ridding it of
the wild beasts which infested it, and so insinuated himself into the affections
of his neighbours, and got to be their prince. Those that exercise authority
either are, or at least would be called, benefactors, Luk_22:25. 2. Others think
that under pretence of hunting he gathered men under his command, in pursuit of
another game he had to play, which was to make himself master of the country and
to bring them into subjection. He was a mighty hunter, that is, he was a violent
invader of his neighbours' rights and properties, and a persecutor of innocent
men, carrying all before him, and endeavouring to make all his own by force and
violence. He thought himself a mighty prince, but before the Lord (that is, in
God's account) he was but a mighty hunter. Note, Great conquerors are but great
hunters. Alexander and Caesar would not make such a figure in scripture-history
as they do in common history; the former is represented in prophecy but as a
he-goat pushing, Dan_8:5. Nimrod was a mighty hunter against the Lord, so the
Septuagint; that is, (1.) He set up idolatry, as Jeroboam did, for the
confirming of his usurped dominion. That he might set up a new government, he
set up a new religion upon the ruin of the primitive constitution of both. Babel
was the mother of harlots. Or, (2.) He carried on his oppression and violence in
defiance of God himself, daring Heaven with his impieties, as if he and his
huntsmen could out-brave the Almighty, and were a match for the Lord of hosts
and all his armies. As if it were a small thing to weary men, he thinks to weary
my God also, Isa_7:13.
II. Nimrod was a great ruler: The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Gen_10:10.
Some way or other, by arts or arms, he got into power, either being chosen to it
or forcing his way to it; and so laid the foundations of a monarchy, which was
afterwards a head of gold, and the terror of the mighty, and bade fair to be
universal. It does not appear that he had any right to rule by birth; but either
his fitness for government recommended him, as some think, to an election, or by
power and policy he advanced gradually, and perhaps insensibly, into the throne.
See the antiquity of civil government, and particularly that form of it which
lodges the sovereignty in a single person. If Nimrod and his neighbours began,
other nations soon learned to incorporate under one head for their common safety
and welfare, which, however it began, proved so great a blessing to the world
that things were reckoned to go ill indeed when there was no king in Israel.
III. Nimrod was a great builder. Probably he was architect in the building of
Babel, and there he began his kingdom; but, when his project to rule all the
sons of Noah was baffled by the confusion of tongues, out of that land he went
forth into Assyria (so the margin reads it, Gen_10:11) and built Nineveh, etc.,
that, having built these cities, he might command them and rule over them.
Observe, in Nimrod, the nature of ambition. 1. It is boundless. Much would have
more, and still cries, Give, give. 2. It is restless. Nimrod, when he had four
cities under his command, could not be content till he had four more. 3. It is
expensive. Nimrod will rather be at the charge of rearing cities than not have
the honour of ruling them. The spirit of building is the common effect of a
spirit of pride. 4. It is daring, and will stick at nothing. Nimrod's name
signifies rebellion, which (if indeed he did abuse his power to the oppression
of his neighbours) teaches us that tyrants to men are rebels to God, and their
rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.
Source(s): Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

Genesis 10:8-12; Genesis 3:15; Genesis 11
After the flood Noah and his family repopulated the earth. Because the deluge
did not eradicate sin, man’s sinful nature ran wild once again. At the same
time, territories were overrun with wild beasts, turning against the inhabitants
of the land. The battle of man against beast was hot and fearful, but in the
midst of it, Nimrod, son of Cush, appeared as the 'knight in shining armor'. A
"mighty hunter," Nimrod delivered the people from the fear of beasts. Hungry for
power, though, he also emancipated man from the LORD.
Until Nimrod, mankind was governed by the patriarchal system where the heads of
families heard from God and guided their individual tribes. Nimrod, more
accurately a "mighty hunter against the LORD," usurped patriarchal rule, and
crowned himself the first human king in all of history. Now man ruled instead of
God.
According to the Bible, he was the son of Cush (1 Ch. 1:10). His name was
derived from the Hebrew verb mahadh meaning "rebel". The Babylonian Talmud
states: "Why, then, was he called Nimrod? Because he stirred up the whole world
to rebel against His [God's] sovereignty." He was the founder and King of the
first empire to come into existence after the flood of Noah's day and he
distinguished himself as a mighty hunter in opposition to God.

Babylon In The Bible
Babylon is still located in Iraq.Babylon (Syriac: ܒܵܐܒܸܠ or ܒܐܒܠ‎) (Arabic: بابل‎)
was a city-state of ancient Mesopotamia, the remains of which are found in
present-day Al Hillah, Babil Province, Iraq, about 85 kilometers (55 mi) south
of Baghdad. All that remains of the original ancient famed city of Babylon today
is a mound, or tell, of broken mud-brick buildings and debris in the fertile
Mesopotamian plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in Iraq. Although it
has been reconstructed, historical resources inform us that Babylon was at first
a small town, that had sprung up by the beginning of the third millennium BC
(the dawn of the dynasties). The town flourished and attained prominence and
political repute with the rise of the First Babylonian Dynasty. It was the "holy
city" of Babylonia by approximately 2300 BC, and the seat of the Neo-Babylonian
Empire from 612 BC. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon were one of the Seven Wonders
of the Ancient World.
The form Babylon is the Greek variant of Akkadian Babilu (bāb-ilû, meaning
"Gateway of the god(s)", translating Sumerian Ka.dingir.ra). In the Hebrew
Bible, the name appears as בבל (Babel), interpreted by Book of Genesis 11:9 to
mean "confusion" (of languages), from the verb balbal, "to confuse".
The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מגדל בבל‎ Migdal Bavel Arabic: برج بابل‎ Burj Babil),
according to the Book of Genesis,[1] was an enormous tower built at the city of
Babylon (Hebrew: Babel, Akkadian: Babilu), a cosmopolitan city typified by a
confusion of languages,[2] also called the "beginning" of Nimrod's kingdom.
According to the biblical account, a united humanity of the generations
following the Great Flood, speaking a single language and migrating from the
east, participated in the building. The people decided their city should have a
tower so immense that it would have "its top in the heavens."[3]
However, the Tower of Babel was not built for the worship and praise of God, but
was instead dedicated to the glory of man, to "make a name" for the builders:
"Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top
in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.'" (Genesis 11:4). The Book of
Genesis then relates how God, displeased with the builders' intent, came down
and confused their languages and scattered the people throughout the earth.
The Tower of Babel has often been associated with known structures, notably the
Etemenanki, a ziggurat dedicated to Marduk by Nabopolassar (c. 610 BC). The
Great Ziggurat of Babylon base was square (not round), 91m in height, but was
finally demolished by Alexander the Great before his death in an attempt to
rebuild it. A Sumerian story with some similar elements is preserved in Enmerkar
and the Lord of Aratta.
The story is found in genesis 11:1-9˄ (King James Version) as follows:
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to
pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of
Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make
brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had
they for mortar. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower,
whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered
abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the
city and the tower, which the children built. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the
people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and
now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go
to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not
understand one another's speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence
upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore
is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language
of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face
of all the earth.
The phrase "the Tower of Babel" does not actually appear in the Bible; it is
always, "the city and its tower" (אֶת-הָעִיר וְאֶת-הַמִּגְדָּל) or just "the
city" (הָעִיר).
The story explains the origin of nations, of their languages, and of Babylon
(Babel). The story's theme of competition between the Lord and humans appears
elsewhere in Genesis, in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The
story displays the Lord's contempt for human pride.
The traditional Judaeo-Christian interpretation, as found for example in the
writings of Flavius Josephus, explains the construction of the tower as a
hubristic act of defiance against God ordered by the arrogant tyrant Nimrod.
Source(s): Bible, Dictionary

What Obama Can Learn about Radical Islam from New Saudi
King
Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz/The Weekly Standard
March 5, 2015
http://www.meforum.org/5073/obama-saudi-radical-islam
Originally published under the title, "New Saudi King Displays Candor on Radical
Islam."
King Salman's attack on "Islamized terrorism" is less euphemistic than President
Obama's war on "violent extremism."
Following the death of Saudi King Abdullah at the end of January, and the
succession of his half-brother, now King Salman, 79, many observers of the
desert monarchy have speculated on its future.
Almost immediately, King Salman has commenced an effort to clear the air
regarding Islamist ideology and its association with terrorism. That's rather
unlike President Obama. While he and some other Western leaders claim they are
combating radical Islam, they habitually refuse to call it by its correct name.
Instead, they employ euphemisms.
American Counter-'Extremism'
On February 18, Obama summoned a three-day conclave titled "Countering Violent
Extremism." Such terminology suggests that the atrocities of the Islamic State
or ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban and other South Asian jihadists, and Iranian
operatives in various countries, are mere aspects of a general planetary wave of
ethnic and political turmoil.
They are not. Radical Islamist terrorism reflects a feature of Islam that has
erupted and then subsided repeatedly over the centuries of Muslim history. It
has its own specific content and dynamics. But the merest recognition of this
reality was absent from a fact sheet on the "White House Summit on Countering
Violent Extremism" issued by the presidential press office. In nearly 1,700
words of bureaucratic boilerplate, references to "Muslims," "Islam," "Wahhabism,"
"Taliban," or "Iran," did not appear even once.
Obama sees Islamist terror as a sociological conundrum, involving "underlying
grievances and conflicts that feed extremism."
Instead, the fact sheet was replete with the suffocating esoterism of the
Beltway vocabulary, referring to "drivers and indicators of radicalization,"
"stakeholders and practitioners," and "extremist messaging and narratives."
Nothing that transpired at the "summit" indicated any better reasoning in the
current administration. Indeed, according to a February 13 report entitled,
grotesquely, "Obama Summit Targets American Extremism," on Voice of America
News, the meeting was concentrated as much on social pathologies like urban
gangs in our country as on Islamist fanaticism.
"Countering Violent Extremism" was provided with its own acronym – "CVE" – which
will probably be forgotten quickly, just as the approach itself is likely to
fail. Before September 11, 2001, Islamist terror was treated as a criminal
problem. Now it is viewed by Western elites as a sociological conundrum,
involving, as stated by Obama in his address to the United Nations in September
2014, "underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism."
While obstacles to Muslim integration in some Western countries, and youthful
alienation, feed radical recruitment, little progress has been made, in 13 years
since 9/11, to broaden Western comprehension of the more basic role of Islamist
ideology. In this context, the responsibility of Iran for encouragement of the
hideous bloodbath by the Syrian regime should not be overlooked.
Saudi Counter-Terrorism
The anti-terror strategy adopted by King Salman appears predicated on impressive
clarity and frankness.
Saudi King Salman, by contrast, has put forward a very different attitude in
remarks to a conference of Islamic scholars in Mecca in February, under the
rubric of "Islam and Counter Terrorism." As reported by the Jidda-based Saudi
Gazette, "the King said the entire world is threatened by the 'Islamized
terrorism' which kills, destroys and commits all kinds of vices under the name
of Islam." In addition, "he said the detestable crimes of terrorists were the
root cause of the hostile campaigns against Islam and Muslims," according to the
paper. King Salman added that many people fear Islam and "are skeptical of us
and our religion."
Aside from Saudi Arabia, the Mecca conference drew participants from Lebanon,
Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Senegal, India, France, Thailand, and other
countries. The meeting was held by the Muslim World League (MWL), created in
1962 as a trans-national coalition of Wahhabi and other fundamentalist entities.
MWL came under widespread suspicion in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. MWL
currently has offices in 34 Muslim and non-Muslim lands, and operates 21
expansive mosques or "Islamic cultural centers" on six continents.
But MWL has not returned to the area of Washington, DC, where its office in
Herndon, Virginia, was raided by U.S. authorities in 2002. Its past
establishment of grandiose mosques and distribution of cash across the globe
were, it seems, curtailed under King Abdullah, whose reign began in 2005. MWL
has not, however, increased the sophistication of its image. Its website is
poorly edited and confuses, currently, South Korea, where MWL operates a mosque
and office, with North Korea.
Nevertheless, the anti-terror strategy adopted by King Salman since he assumed
the throne appears predicated on an impressive clarity and frankness. The
February Mecca conference declared in its English-language program,
These juveniles and fool dreamers… [w]ith their reckless actions and careless
audacity to spill innocent people's blood… have horrified honest people and
terrorized Muslims and others… they shout 'there is no god but Allah,' and
'Allah is great.' To these zealots, these are empty slogans without any
substance… this distorted campaign has committed horrible sins under the cover
of Islam... The time has come for scholars, preachers and people of conscience
to warn people against this scourge, and disavow it.
In its final communiqué, the conference condemned "the ideological deviation ...
based on irrational concepts that govern the Muslims' relationship with others.
These include jihad." The summary document stated that terrorism "has tarnished
the image of Islam throughout the world," with "an unfounded wave of accusing
people of apostasy, depravity and [unacceptable theological] innovation…
atrocities have been committed [based on] erroneous and unfounded
interpretations… the stigma of terrorism [is] attached to [Muslims].
The conference observed that,
sectarian strife, and mounting animosity among Muslims, have drawn them into
conflicts, and driven them into warring factions. Their communities and their
countries are on the verge of crumbling into small factional and ethnic feuding
entities; distracted away from working for the best interests of their nation
and civilization by these conflicts. Muslim minorities have been denuded of
their potential. A wedge of enmity has been driven between them and their fellow
citizens and communities. The relationship soured among compatriots of one
single country, and has spoiled any chance of rapprochement... Thus, Muslims
faced isolation and marginalization in their own homelands.
The idiom of the Mecca conference represents a difference from past rhetoric by
Muslim leaders aimed only at dissociating radical Islam from the religion as a
whole, or blaming the West for the problems within the faith. Much more is
required to make a new commitment to self-examination among Muslims real. But as
his predecessor, King Abdullah, adopted small but meaningful internal reforms,
King Salman has begun a significant, more ambitious process, and we may hope he
has the courage and stamina to carry it through.
Irfan Al-Alawi is executive director of the London-based Islamic Heritage
Research Foundation. Stephen Schwartz, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is
executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, DC.

Tikrit igniting sectarian war in Iraq
Friday, 6 March 2015
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya
Fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq is inevitable
because there is only one conclusion: you chase them or they chase you. There is
no border demarcation, and no one recognizes the authority of the other. Iraqi
forces are taking the lead in the city of Tikrit, one of the two most important
Iraqi cities seized by ISIS.
They are also progressing in most of Saladin province and will most probably
free it from terrorist groups, but just for a short period, because there are
Iranian forces and sectarian militias fighting alongside the Iraqi army. Photos
and information arising from there depict sectarian crimes.
The liberation of Tikrit and every inch of Iraqi territory is a national duty
that expresses the integrity of the state’s authority. The city and its suburbs
will remain within the boundaries of the Iraqi state.
The war has become sectarian and ethnic, with militias backed by Iranian forces
intimidating the inhabitants of the besieged regions
However, if the aim is simply to control Tikrit and expel ISIS, with sectarian
infighting and political alliances, it will be a temporary victory, and ISIS
will return to the city with local support. The war has become sectarian and
ethnic, with militias backed by Iranian forces intimidating the inhabitants of
the besieged regions.
Most of the military activities on the ground are aided by the West. The United
States provides precious intelligence information, observing the movements of
terrorists and monitoring the status of the territories under their control.
It looks like a Shiite-Sunni war that has nothing to do with the state or the
liberation of lands from ISIS. Will Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi, who is
supreme commander of the armed forces, be able to stop the sectarian war after
the liberation of these areas? Unfortunately Sunnis are angry with him, though
they were happy with his election because he promised to work on reconciliation.
They now believe that he is weak.
Resemblance to Syria
They fear that the situation will get out of control. They will face the same
fate as Syria, where clashes have turned into wars between Alawites and Sunnis,
despite the denial of the regime in Damascus. It is now obvious, especially with
the involvement of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. What is
happening in Tikrit and Saladin province is similar to what is happening in
Syria, with practically the same identities.
The Americans have to understand the nature of the fighting. They found
themselves dragged back to Iraq because of ISIS provocations through heinous
crimes and the threat to the Iraqi government during the last days of former
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s term. His administration administration
sustained defeats, which enabled extremists to seize important sites and
threaten the capital.
Although the Americans played an active role in the resignation of Maliki, and
later acknowledged that his policies were behind the current disasters, they are
now fighting in a trench similar to his camp, helping sectarian groups.
They might be able to free all Iraqi territory and eradicate ISIS and other
rebels, but this war will be followed by a sectarian one similar to Syria’s. How
will the United States benefit from supporting the Iraqi army without a
political process that makes everyone a winner?
Western role
The Americans should realize that they have become part of the region’s
repugnant sectarianism, fighting alongside Alawites in Syria and Shiites in
Iraq, while negotiating with Shiite Iran on the nuclear issue. All three
scenarios are against Sunnis, or at least this is how it seems. The Americans
have put themselves in an unprecedented, terrible trap.
We hoped, and are still hoping, that the United States will participate in
isolating Assad, the Syrian regime and its sectarianism, and support the
moderate opposition that includes all religions and ethnic groups. We hoped that
Washington would refrain from supporting the government in Baghdad unless it
agreed to become representative of all Iraqis.
Widening the sectarian wars in the region will not serve the West. Al-Qaeda,
ISIS, Al-Nusra, Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and others are nothing but the
outcome of such blind fighting. The West should help promote moderate civilian
institutions against religious hardliners, not support the latter to achieve
victories in wars against temporary opponents.

Iran’s nuclear sunset: A strategically fatal deal
Friday, 6 March 2015
Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya
The marathon nuclear negotiations are approaching a “historic” stage of
potentially entering into a strategically-catastrophic agreement, as the six
world powers (known as the P5+1; the United States, United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Russia, and China) and Iran are shaping the final nuclear deal with
reports of adding a “sunset” clause.
The additional clauses of the final nuclear deal fundamentally move away from
what the major key player, the United States, originally demanded at the
beginning of the talks.
While the Obama administration attempts to add to its Middle Eastern
achievements and project a picture that nuclear talks are progressing, the
Iranian nuclear team has managed to obtain an unprecedented level of compromises
from the White House, removing crucial restrictions against Iran’s nuclear
program, ensuring the lifting of sanctions as well as the ultimate legal right
and international legitimacy to become a nuclear threshold state.
The sunset position will ensure that Iran will be a nuclear state after the 10
year period, assuming that Tehran will not covertly violate the rules during the
agreement
More fundamentally, the objectives of halting Iran’s nuclear program permanently
have altered into limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a period of time while
removing the sanctions, and ultimately rewarding Tehran with this sunset period.
The sunset clause: The end to non-proliferation
The primary objective of the nuclear talks was to halt Iran’s nuclear program
permanently, hence eliminating the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the
region, and removing the strategic threat that a nuclear armed Iran might pose
in the region through it regional hegemonic ambitions, shifting the balance of
power and creating new alliances.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration compromised on the original demand, and
accepted a deal which will limit Tehran’s nuclear program for approximately 20
years. However, the Iranian nuclear team was capable of obtaining more
compromises. As the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told the Council on
Foreign Relations, “Let’s establish a mechanism for a number of years. Not 10,
not 15 — but I’m willing to live with less.” The U.S. began showing signs to
accept the period of 15, 10, or even less years.
More fundamentally, the “sunset” notion will be the most crucial victory that
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Rowhani administration have
scored in the agreement. The sunset period will allow the Islamic Republic to
resume enriching uranium at a level they desire, spin as many advanced
centrifuges as they want, make its reactors fully operational, build new heavy
water reactors, produce as much fuels as it desires for its reactors, and
maintain higher uranium enrichment capability with no restriction after the
period of the agreement. In fact, Khamenei needs such an agreement which would
allow Iran to enrich uranium, lift the sanctions, and empower Iran
simultaneously. After the agreement Iran will be rewarded with an unrestricted
industrialized, high level enrichment nuclear program. In the world of
geopolitics, 10 or 15 year agreements are considered very brief.
In other words, the sunset position will ensure that Iran will be a nuclear
state after the 10 year period, assuming that Tehran will not covertly violate
the rules during the agreement.
For example, although U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out that the
Islamic Republic is living up to its commitment with respects to fulfilling the
clauses of the Joint Plan of Actions, according to IAEA, Iran still denies
providing full access to information and its nuclear sites. Last week, the IAEA
reported its concern, stating that the agency “remains concerned about the
possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving
military-related organizations, including activities related to the development
of a nuclear payload for a missile.” The IAEA added that it cannot conclude that
Iran’s nuclear activities are peaceful and that there are no “undeclared nuclear
material and activities in Iran.”
Moreover, one of the conditions of the interim deal stated that Iran should
convert any enriched uranium it produces from hexafluoride into oxide after
January 20, 2014. Iran has not complied with this provision although the
deadline has already passed.
Khamenei’s major victory
What will the Islamic Republic receive if the sunset clause is applied? All the
crucial economic sanctions against Iran will be lifted. Iran will join the
international community, increasing oil sales and trade. After the final nuclear
deal, even some violations of the nuclear deal during the agreement will not
halt the European Union, China, and Russia from stepping back in trade with
Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei and the ruling clerics will ensure their hold on power
and eliminate the economic danger which was causing potential revolutionary
unrest. In addition, after the agreement, Iran will be more industrialized,
resume its nuclear activities at full speed to become a nuclear threshold state,
and can pursue its nuclear ambitions without any limitations. Technologically
speaking, after Iran becomes a nuclear threshold state, it is a matter of weeks
to covert the materials into weapons grade material. In addition, there is no
limitation on Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program.
The Obama administration is extremely eager to strike a “historic” nuclear deal
to add to its Middle Eastern achievements even though the deal might be
strategically fatal. The White House might also believe that Iran will change in
the period of 10-15 years becoming more moderate and ultimately a responsible
nuclear state.
The argument that Iran’s political system will change dramatically and
fundamentally within 10 years is totally unrealistic. The institution of the
Iranian state is not only centered on geopolitical, strategic, and economic
landscapes, but also on ideological tenets. Even a change in the presidential
office, empowerments of the moderates versus the hardliners, and appointment of
a new supreme leader are not going to fundamentally alter Iran’s political
system and change the ruling cleric’s regional hegemonic ambitions.
In fact, a final nuclear deal with a sunset clause is not “final” but a
temporary deal thoroughly rewarding Iran, ensuring nuclear arm race in the
region, and further destabilizing the region.

Iran’s Suspect Deal in the Making
Amir Taheri /Asharq Al Awsat
Friday, 6 Mar, 2015
By all indications both the Islamic Republic’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei and
US President Barack Obama appear determined to reach some sort of agreement on
the Iranian nuclear issue. The deadline they seem to have fixed is March 31,
which coincides with the end of Iranian New Year holidays.
Earlier this week, in an interview with Reuters, Obama hinted at the broad
outlines of the putative accord.
Under it, Iran’s nuclear program will be frozen at more or less the present
level which, speaking quickly so that he would say it without being caught out,
Obama said would keep Iran a year away from building its first bomb if it ever
decided to do so.
In exchange, Iran would agree to remain in that position, known as “threshold,”
for 10 years, a “sunset” clause that could be reviewed after five years.
In other words, after a minimum of five and a maximum of 10 years Iran would be
free to cross the “threshold” from the current one year to months or even weeks,
going high-gear producing a nuclear arsenal. In other words, Obama has decided
to resign himself to the possibility of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic.
As a reward for accepting the five to 10 years’ probation, Iran would benefit
from a gradual reduction and eventual lifting of some sanctions imposed since
the 1990s. (A range of sanctions imposed prior to that date and linked to other
“mischiefs” allegedly committed by Iran would not be affected by any accord on
the nuclear issue.)
Provided it actually happens, such an accord would amount to an admission by
Iran that it has committed “crimes” in the form of violating the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and thus must endure international probation for
up to a decade.
The accord would also give the P5+1 group, of which the US is the most active
member, what is known in diplomatic language as a droit-de-regard (right of
supervision) on major aspects of Iranian industrial and economic policies.
The whole P5+1 show has quite a few disturbing aspects.
To start with, the P5+1 is an informal ad hoc body whose legitimacy remains
murky at best.
We don’t know who or what it represents as a group.
It is not mandated by the United Nations; for that we should have had a Security
Council resolution spelling out its composition, rules of conduct, and mission
statement. The fact that talks have ignored six Security Council resolutions on
the very subject of Iran’s nuclear program shows that the P5+1 is not acting on
behalf of the UN.
The group does not represent any economic or military alliance, for example the
European Union and/or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), either. It
doesn’t even represent an informal but generally recognized grouping such as the
G-8—if only because Russia, which remains a member of the P5+1, has been
expelled from the G-8.
To sum up: the P5+1 has no legal existence, no mandate, no mission statement,
and thus no authority to conclude any accord with Iran which is a properly
constituted nation state, a member of the UN and thus enjoys full sovereignty
and legitimacy.
Then we face the question of who is going to sign any accord and on whose
behalf?
On the Iranian side the answer is clear: any properly mandated official of the
Islamic Republic could sign.
But, what about the other side?
Would all P5+1 countries sign and, if yes, at what level?
Even then, what would the European Union’s Foreign Affairs tsarina Federica
Mogherini do? Theoretically, she is supposed to be the P5+1’s interface with the
Islamic Republic.
Another question concerns the status of whatever is eventually signed. Would it
be just a desiderata list, as was the case with the so-called Geneva Accord,
later devalued into just a press statement?
Or are we aiming at a Memorandum of Understanding which, in diplomatic lore, is
a rough copy for a proper treaty?
Or, perhaps, the aim is to arrive at an international treaty in due form?
In that case, whatever is initialed at the end of the current talks would have
to be submitted to proper legislative procedure in Iran, in all P5+1 countries,
and in all 28 member states of the European Union.
I doubt that the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament, would approve a text
that puts the nation under foreign tutelage for up to 10 years, despite its
being made up of regime loyalists.
Iranians of all ideological shades are allergic to foreign intervention in their
domestic affairs. And the painful memories of 1919, when Britain and Russia
tried to put Iran under their joint tutelage are still burning many Iranian
hearts.
Even Khomeinists, who as pan-Islamists reject nationalism as deviation from “the
Only True Faith,” might not find it easy to accept an accord under which Iran
would need the signature of foreign powers to spend its own money, and that for
up to 10 years.
On the other side, the US Congress as well as the French and British parliaments
are also unlikely to rubber-stamp a text that would leave Iran only a year from
making a bomb.
All international treaties include a mechanism for arbitration without which it
would be impossible to gauge compliance.
So who or what is going to be the arbitration authority and the guarantor of
compliance of whatever text is concocted by US Secretary of State John Kerry and
his Khomeinist counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif?
If we go by the five to 10 year clause it is clear that neither Kerry nor Zarif
are likely to be in a position of power when those fatidic sunsets descend.
Even then, we would not be at the end of the story.
Someone would still have to submit a draft resolution to the UN Security Council
demanding the cancellation of all previous resolutions under which Iran has been
subjected to international sanctions for decades.
President Hassan Rouhani and his so-called “New York Group” of aides would be
doing Iran and even their own Khomeinist camp a big disservice by submitting to
the diktats of an informal group acting as judge, jury and executioner.
Iran would do better to hold direct and transparent talks on an equal legal
footing with the US, nation to nation, and with the UN as a member state, and
with any other country with which there is a contention, on all issues of
dispute.
The mullahs are known for devious tactics of taqiyah (obfuscation), kitman
(dissimulation), and istitar (pulling a curtain) when they want to surrender
without losing face. However, such tactics are not worthy of a proper nation
state, especially a proud one such as Iran.